Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
It's quite bizarre. The anti-circumcision crowd typically relies upon the following false arguments:
1. It's equivalent to female genital mutilation: No, it's not. Cutting off a clitoris is not the same as removing foreskin.
2. It affects the pleasure a man feels: No, it's scientifically proven not to.
3. It has no health benefits: No, it prevents infections and STD transmission. We live in a society with easy access to anti-biotics little HIV exposure. Our policy makers do not, therefore, feel from a cost-benefit analysis standpoint everyone should have the procedure done.
4. It causes excess trauma to children: No, I've yet to meet anyone who remembers it. Every child I've seen have it done forgot about it within hours.
5. The people who have it done are motivated by some kind of malice towards children: No, it's typically done for reasons of custom or health.
The only argument that holds any ground is that it's a permanent choice that baby's cannot make themselves. Once again, it's a parents legal right and obligation to make choices for their children. Those rights and obligations typically continue until age of majority.
|
Welp.
1) nerve endings are nerve endings, and there are alot in both, so there are some parallels. Should we compare a count? No, but to also imply that foreskin is a numb, sensationless and adds nothing to stimulation is equally misguided.
2) I think you'd disagree in a heck of a hurry if you were "intact". Its a mighty sensitive area, and the drying and alteration of sensitivity that this drying does to the glans is most definitely decreasing sensitivity. You may have a different gauge for this "pleasure", but its most definitely decreased from anyone who is not circumcised.
3) Honestly, the only risk to transmission is the potential for skin breakage, which could happen in cases where individuals suffer a frenulum tear, phimosis due to anatomy or rough intercourse. Hygiene can be an issue for anyone, as a medical professional, I promise you that knows no bounds. Its easy enough to reduce the risks with protection, partner selection. Definitely not enough of a difference to ever mandate circumcision over not.
4) Ability to recall, and forgetting are two vastly different things. There is plenty in your life you can't recall visually or in detail, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, or doesn't have the potential to affect you or be recalled.
5) Post health concern or medical need? Sure, we have tons of procedures to remove things, for active concerns or genetic predisposition. But those are for KNOWN risks, not theoretical risks. Customs, well you're just back into the barbarism discussion with that one again. Should we bring up some things that are "customs" that are simply outrageous? I'm sure there are a few that could make you uncomfortable. Whats that saying again, "100's of years of tradition, unimpeded by progress". Get with the times, its grossly unnecessary for at least 80% of your posted argument argument.